Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 16:38:02 -0500 From: Jeremy Livingston <jeremy.livingston-AT-gmail.com> To: deleuze-guattari-driftline.org-AT-lists.driftline.org Subject: [D-G] "politics of the left", and capitalism I gotta preface this by admitting, I am of the post-'68 generation (my mother was eight years old then). Also I'm sorry this is so long; I just got started and didn't want to stop until I was done. Be that as it may, I have two things I want to say here. First, Sid began by suggesting: "For a poilitics of the left to not only continue to exist ... but became viable once again it seems that we should re-think the conditions that we find ourselves within today...." I think this is the wrong foot to set off on. The question should not be "How can a politics of the left be viable?" but rather, "What will a politics of desire look like?" D&G's politics isn't "a politics of the left" first and foremost. Rather, theirs is a politics of desire, which is consequently a politics of the left when all is said and done. That is to say: A politics of desire is a politics of the left, but a politics of the left is not necessarily a politics of desire. We owe it to D&G, but more importantly to ourselves, to explore what it will mean to have a politics of desire. No wishy-washing this: A 'politics of desire' is one that is validated by joy, fun, adventure, pleasure, indulgence, sexuality. It aims for a World of Delight (rated R for mature themes and coarse language). Everything must follow from this, including its "leftism"; nothing can be assumed. Deleuze, in the Abecedaire interview, defined "the Left" as an attitude, a cosmopolitan attitude of respect even for those most distant from your current affairs; and this is why we can say a politics of desire is "on the left". But this doesn't limit us to any specific program, right? Who knows how far away from traditional socialism our desire might take us! Second, Sid asked: "Can we not understand Capital today, at the beginning of the 21st century, as already opperating on a level of non-identity/a-signification?" But that was, I think, part of D&G's point when they insisted that Capitalism, in contrast with every other mode of social organization in history, is characterized by flow. Or at least, the market economy; this has always worked by non-identity and by a-signification. What is at issue is the axiomatic it still tries to adhere to. This is the most challenging thing, I think, about D&G's politics, but in order to understand it we have to say what Capitalism is and what it isn't. It's important to consider what is horrifying about Capitalism, and what is bad about it. These are two different things, for D&G. What is horrifying about it, and what has always been the source of fear that is felt towards the market economy by primitive peoples and by old-school Communists (who, since Engels, have always been primitivists at heart) is that it isn't governed by codes. Primitive societies are extremely conservative with respect to their codes, and the market economy destroys that and unleashes uncontrollable forces across the globe: flows of capital, of migrant labor, of electricity, of information, credit, maybe also pollution.... Frankly this prospect scares the shit out of everybody. Not just because it is confusing, but because it makes social control impossible. It is something more befitting the experience of a black magician than a man of convention (hence "memoirs of a sorcerer"). Capitalism is Satanic. This is what D&G revel in. This makes the market economy something sublime. What is horrifying about Capitalism is what is good about it. What is bad about it is people are still too timid for it. The bounty of the market economy is made possible by its flows. Flows are made when codes break down, but historically this has happened within the context of established State power. States traditionally over-coded the flows, damming them up; but as the codes broke down, they needed a new strategy to siphon from it. So they developed the axiomatic, which is like a code for the changes of codes. The purpose of the axiomatic is to try to contrive the direction of flows, rather than letting them flow (because oh the horror that would follow from that!). Hence the invention of Capitalism proper -- which is an attitude, a way of relating to one another that privileges "The Economy" and its (contrived) flows rather than seeing what happens when the flows determine themselves. (The Enclosure Acts are one example of State action that is meant to support "The Economy", when the economy was in no need of support.) So D&G's problem is not that Capitalism is rooted in the problem of identity and signification. Rather, it's a lame and awkward hybrid. This is what creates the clinical schizophrenic: We are put in touch with flows by our intersections with machines, with cash and credit circulation, with electricity -- but then these flows crush us against the dykewalls of morbid and superficial preconceptions about how things are "supposed" to happen. These preconceptions manifest in everything from social convention to bureaucracy. Remember their conclusion in "Anti-Oedipus": The solution is not to retreat to a romantic fantasy of simple encoding based on some myth of the original society (as in traditional Communism); rather, the solution is to one-up Capitalism, to push it past its own limits, to break the dams. And this is the challenge. How many of us have the balls to destroy the axiomatic in the name of desire? Well anyway, now I think I'm more talking for the sake of my own voice. Sorry for flooding folks' boxes. Also, thank you Chris and Sid for your comments on my "fascism" breakdown, but maybe I came in too late with it or it was too much. _______________________________________________ List address: deleuze-guattari-AT-driftline.org Info: http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org Archives: www.driftline.org
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005